Reposted by Rob Wisc
Working on a story about this and hoping to speak to USA Today journalists or journalists at other Gannett to better understand the editorial process. Anonymity granted. Contact info in bio.
Rob Wisc
@robwisc.bsky.social
329 followers 488 following 611 posts
US educational policy | political economies | community organizing | labor
![Screenshot of pp. 5-6 of the online appendix for report discussed in thread. Link to appendix: https://winometer-appendix.com/
Text in the screenshot reads:
2. Defining social class
The report’s primary class definition follows our Williams–Abbott Class Gaps report, broadened slightly to make fuller use of the data. The working class (WC) is respondents with no four-year college degree and a household income in roughly the middle of the national distribution (about $30,000–$150,000). The middle/upper class (MUC) comparison group is respondents with a four-year degree and household income of at least $80,000. Respondents who fall in neither group (e.g. low-income college graduates, high-income non-graduates) are unclassified on this scheme and are excluded from class contrasts but retained for full-sample estimates. For robustness we also report an education-only cut (WC = no four-year degree; MUC = degree). The table gives the unweighted respondent counts under each.
[Table]
Class scheme | Working class | Middle/upper | Unclassified
Income × education (primary) | 14,587 | 8,076 | 16,604
Education only | 25,753 | 13,514 | 0
“Unclassified” respondents do not meet either the WC or the MUC criteria under that scheme; they remain in full-sample (population) estimates but not in WC-vs-MUC contrasts.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:zkzlgc2ck4h64y7sk7j5ljif/bafkreif6bcsiivz7uc2qcuycgt3pau2bfgxvyhcmss5a37djlsdjsugw7q)
